3 ms·
> I admit I didn't RTFA but please, Hypothesis of interstellar trade. This is a very interesting comment because it tries to nitpick the difference between "h
by gnulinux 3y ago
> I admit I didn't RTFA but please, Hypothesis of interstellar trade.
This is a very interesting comment because it tries to nitpick the difference between "hypothesis" and "theory" without either understanding the difference, or checking which one applies to OP. A theory is a logical framework with initial assumptions (axioms) and rules of inference. If one creates a model for interstellar trade and discusses its assumptions/implications it is then a theory. I don't know what "hypothesis of interstellar trade" would even mean. This would be like seeing "Group Theory" and saying it should be "Group Hypothesis"... It doesn't seem clear to me what you're implying the article may even be about.
I know that many people will consider this comment snarky, but I truly think one of the issues in human communication is attempting nitpick something without comprehensively understanding it. Human communication is flexible, nebulous and ambiguous. Nitpicking communication willy-nilly does more harm than good, imho.
- fsckboy 3y agoa theory explains all the data you have gathered, including tests that the theory predicted. When you collect data that the theory fails to explain, you look for a hypothesis that makes some predictions that you could test. If the new data you collect is according to your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is on the way to being part of the theory. stop calling an earnest effort to choose the right word "nitpicking". If our theories of matter, energy, space-time and relativity rule out the hypothesis for interstellar trade, that is not a theory of interstellar trade. If our theories of matter, energy etc. rule in interstellar trade, that's an interstellar trade hypothesis. methinks you are guilty of the problem I was pointing out?